Traditional and digital libraries a user perspective Ragnar Nordlie Oslo University college

Transcription

1 Traditional and digital libraries a user perspective Ragnar Nordlie Oslo University college

2 Physical vs. digital Traditional library values Retrieval ( we have the answer )» Organization for retrieval (systems and metadata)» Search assistance Quality» Currency of material» Reliability of answers Local relevance Access ( seamlessness )

3 Physical vs. digital Will users access the digital library in the same way (or for the same purpose) as they do the physical? Will our methods and standards for describing the material be as conductive to the use of the documents in the digital as in the physical library? Can the digital collection be managed in the same way (or on the same principles) as the physical?

4 Norwegian National library s digitization effort Full digitization of all collections 1.5 mill.books vols. newspapers 2 mill. images Norw. Broadcasting programming (radio & TV), complete since 1990 (10 years worth of programs each year) 1.5 mill. periodicals Music, ephemeral writing, posters & postcards.. Time perspective 15 yrs, given financing Trial project 2007, volumes

5 Challenges versus users Document representation Search Result presentation Granularity Availability

6 Traditional library model Search interface based on users comprehending metadata Result presentation based on a bibliographic model (by author, by subject ) Description/search granularity on document level Accessibility (slow but) guaranteed

7 User search behaviour Library last resort Google as system model Principle of least effort Little understanding of advanced search facilities High frequency of failed searches Tendency to formulate search on too general level, problems in adapting own terminology to system s

8 Challenges for traditional knowledge organization User cannot express Own problematic situation Language is Ambiguous Infinite under constant development Description rules (for cat./class.) are incomplete difficult to interpret Possible categories for description are hard to define of infinite amount Hierarchy vs. network

9 NNL digitization project: Representation Full text searchable Scanning + OCR text generation Page image used for presentation, OCR text for searching Vulnerable to scanner quality Lacks xml and other markup

10 Search interface Based on Google window Common access to all databases Retrieval vulnerable with respect to quality of document representation (ocr) Documents of very varying age, genre, language. Collection size Users ability to choose search term

11 Possible solutions to search problems (Automatic) combination with metadata? E.g. Combination term / publication year to allow for spelling adjustment.. User modelling functionality force / invite context description? Allow folksonomic description?

12 Folksonomy example Tagcloud in LibraryThing for Helge Ingstad (archeologist who found norse viking settlements in Canada)»History(8)» Vikings (3)» Archeology, non-fiction (2)» Scandinavia, Swedish, seafaring, adventure, Canada, heathenry, america, explorers, native population, USA, documentary, unread, wishlist (1)

13 Granularity Should the DL index for searching and / or display parts of documents as well as full documents?

14 INEX research results on retrieval and presentation of parts of documents when shown hitlist consisting of both relevant articles and article parts,» Users choose full article as primary access point» Users look at parts as often as they look at full articles but tend to end by looking at full article» Users more easily and consistently identify relevance of full article.

15 Result presentation According to presumed relevance Problems Users need explanation of system reasoning about relevance With so many and diverse documents, result list becomes impossible to navigate sensibly Difficult to make connection between result list, which present text, and document, which is presented as image

16 Accessibility Principle: free access to digital collection on same terms as for material in print Negotiation with rights management organizations Author associations, publisher association, assoc.of translators, Litterary rights management org.

17 And then the fun begins 2.0 technologies Interactivity User as producer Communal peer review Open access.